About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
. back in the '60s, i remember california trying to pass a referendum that would legalize housing discrimination. so we've got a long way to go in this. and so, you know, for proponents of the issue who say, you know, we're at a turning point, we're at a turning point. as a historian of the african-american civil rights struggle, i frequently remind people that, hey, turning points can take decades. we don't measure turning points in a matter of days, weeks, months. we measure turning points in many instances in a manner of decades. brown v. board of education was a turning point, but it took another 20 years in my neck of the woods. i'm down here in memphis. it took another 20 years to actually start desegregating the schools. so we've got to be very mindful of what -- we've got to be very mindful of in terms of how we're framing the issue, in terms of how we're categorizing these turning points. because again, turning points can take a while. >> professor charles mckinney, pleasure to have you on this morning. thank you. >> thank you. >>> if you travel and you like local food, y
and better grades who are being denied seats in college. another court in california, by the way, the ninth district, ruled the opposite way, so what happens usually is it goes to the supreme court, and we're going to do a monumental ruling from the supreme court on this question i think in the very near future. >> yeah t.sound like it. michigan's attorney general says the ruling may take a while though to go into effect, if ever. so what does this mean then for minorities seeking admission to michigan universities now and those who sued actually to overturn the ban? >> well, ironically people have the courage to bring these lawsuits and get the whole ball rolling, rarely see the benefit of it, because by the time it winds through the court. four years is up or three years if it's law school so you wouldn't -- you'd be out of law school now because the person who brings the suit goes to another law school so they won't see the benefit of it, the person who actually brings the suit, but other students throughout the united states, of course, will be affected, and they will have an enormous e
, the democrat from california. as far as those talking points go, it is not at all clear where they were edited. what we do know apparently is that the original determination that al qaeda was involved, or al qaeda affiliated groups was sent out the front door to the cia and went through some sort of editing process, perhaps interagency, perhaps at the white house that still hasn't been answered. what we do know is if the white house wanted to provide the answers, they could have done it before the election and chose not to. let's not forget, of course, general petraeus and his whole personal scandal, debacle, that could also be professional. we still don't know the answers to that. the administration knew of the petraeus investigation. the president claims that he didn't before the election, now we're only learning of it after. >> let's talk a little bit more about susan rice and that whole situation with the talking points, because she is the ambassador to the u.n. she has been mentioned as a possible replacement for hillary clinton as secretary of state. republican senators john mccain, lind
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)